Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 502 (1.37 seconds)
Documents citing Corn Products Refining Co. vs Shangrila Food Products Ltd. on 8 October, 1959

Bhim Sain And Anr. vs Janta Naswar Factory on 27 March, 1997

To such a man, the overall structural or phonetic similarity and the similarity of the idea in the two marks is reasonably likely to cause a confusion between them (Corn Products Refining Co. v. Shangrila Food Products Ltd. (supra). (iv) The absolute identity of two competing marks or their close resemblance is only one of the tests and a comparison has to be made out a glance and not with strenuous effort to find the similarity. (v) Trade connection between different goods is another such test. Ex- hypothesi this test applies only when the goods are different. But there is no reason why the test of trade connection between different goods should not apply where the competing marks closely resemble each other, just as much as it applies where the competing marks are identical.
Delhi High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - S N Kapoor - Full Document

S. Mehar Singh vs M.L. Gupta & Co. on 30 May, 1997

V)Trade connection between different goods is anther such test, Ex-hypothesi this test applies only when the goods are different. But there is no reason why the test of trade connection between different goods should not apply where the competing marks closely resemble each other, just as much as it applies where the competing marks are identical. (See Corn Products Refining Co. vs. Shangrila Food Products Ltd. (Supra).
Delhi High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 4 - S N Kapoor - Full Document

Reserved On: 08.10.2025 vs Leeford Healthcare Ltd on 11 November, 2025

74. The Defendant has shown that multiple traders such as Dabur, Rasna, and others have long used similar terms and of packaging for identical glucose-based products. This establishes that the word 'Glucose-D' and its variants are common to the rt trade, reducing the Plaintiff's claim. As held in Corn Products Refining Co. v. Shangrila Food Products Ltd., AIR 1960 SC 142, where a common element is widely used in the market, consumers learn to distinguish products by their other distinctive features, not by the shared element. Relevant para is as under:
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 61 - Cited by 0 - S Sharma - Full Document

Walter Bushnell Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. vs Miracle Life Sciences And Anr. on 26 May, 2014

"7. As we said in Corn Products Refining v. Shangrila Food Products Ltd., (1960) 1 SCR 968: (AIR 1960) SC 142 : PTC (Suppl)(1) 13(SC)) the question has to be approached from the point of view of a man of average intelligence and imperfect recollection. To such a man the overall structural and phonetic similarity of the two names 'Amritdhara' and 'Lakshmandhara' is, in our opinion, likely to deceive or cause confusion. We must consider the overall similarity of the two composite words 'Amritdhara' and 'Lakshmandhara'. We do not think that the learned Judges of the High Court were right in saying that no Indian would mistake one for the other. An unwary purchaser of average intelligence and imperfect recollection would not, as the High Court supposed, split the name into its component parts and consider the etymological meaning thereof or even consider meanings of the composite words as `current of nectar' or 'current of Lakshman'. He would go more by the overall structural and phonetic similarity and the nature of the medicine he has previously purchased, or has been told about, or about which has otherwise learnt and which he wants to purchase."
Delhi High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 13 - M Singh - Full Document

Cadbury India Limited And Ors. vs Neeraj Food Products on 25 May, 2007

66. It has been urged that the entire colour combination, get up, lay out and trade dress is commonly used by the confectionery industry and no monopoly or exclusive rights can be claimed over the same in the lay out, trade dress and device. In this behalf, during the course of arguments, learned Counsel for the defendant has handed over a copy of the trade dress of a product sold by M/s Nestle's as 'SMARTIES' urging that the same is identical to that of the plaintiff. I find that in the written statement, the defendant has drawn no similarity so far as the products sold as SMARTIES is concerned. The same has been handed over only during the course of submissions. This document has not even filed in record in accordance with law. Therefore as per established procedure such plea deserves to be rejected outright. However, I find that even as per the principles laid down in Corn Products Refining Co. v. Shangrila Food Products Ltd., the Apex Court had clearly observed in para 13 that before a person can seek to derive assistance for the success of his application from the presence of number of marks having one or common features which occur in it mark, he has to prove that these marks had acquired a reputation by user in the market. There is no pleading or documentation placed on record by the defendant before this Court so far as the Nestle's mark is concerned to evidence extensive user or reputation acquired by it consequently in my view nothing material in the present case can turn on this plea.
Delhi High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 29 - G Mittal - Full Document

Simero Vitrified Private Limited vs Simora Tiles Llp on 22 December, 2022

"32. The next contention of the defendant is that there are number of other companies who are using the similar trade mark as that of the plaintiff, those are CEFF, SIMCEF, CEF, BECEF, SYCEF, CEACEF, SYCEF, SICEF and C-CEF. The contention of the defendant has no force as the defendants have failed to produce any evidence of the actual user of the said marks referred by the defendants. In order to take the said defence, the party has to give cogent evidence before this court as to since when these trade marks are being used and what is the goodwill and reputation of the said trade marks. The defendant in the present case has not produced the samples of the third parties in order to show as to whether the said marks are being used and goods are available in the market or not. The similar defence raised in various cases has been dealt by the courts from time to time in the cases of Century Traders (supra), Corn Products refining Co. Vs. Shangrila Food Products Ltd., AIR 1960 SUPREME Page 32 of 74 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 04:38:56 IST 2022 C/AO/83/2022 ORDER DATED: 22/12/2022 COURT 142 and Pankaj Goel vs. Dabur India Ltd., 2008(38) PTC 49 (Del). Relevant part of the decision of Corn product(supra) is reproduced hereinbelow:-
Gujarat High Court Cites 60 - Cited by 0 - A P Thaker - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next